Wednesday, July 21, 2004
7:45 PM |
In Jane Austen's World, Power Has a Gender
I am reading old books these days.
But first of all, an apology to women everywhere. The point I am to make, however, needs the penning of the following anecdote which, although true, can stir up a hornet's nest of bruised politically correct sensibilities.
There is a local beauty queen who is famous for her pretty face, as well as for her hilarious English slips. She is known for saying the following immortal words of wisdom when asked, in an interview, how she perceived the modern "woman" to be, in relation to "man."
She quipped, "For every man's success, there is a woman's behind."
The "twisted" remark, although meant well, resulted to an overwhelming sexist brouhaha; after all, a "woman's behind," if you have been hiding under a rock all these years, is a euphemism for a woman's ass.
But I am not here to dwell on the intricacies of a joke, nor on a poor woman's lost sense of context or grammar. This essay is focused, instead, on this one maxim, and -- "untwisting" the beauty queen's words -- we finally have the saying, "For every man's success, there is a woman behind him."
Think Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin. Think Hillary Clinton and Bill. Think Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand. Think Marie Curie and Pierre. Think Corazon Aquino and Benigno. Think Olive Oyl and Popeye. One might say that there is a power struggle between the sexes, and what we often see plainly before us is not always what it seems to be. As a Japanese history professor once remarked in a class I had in Tokyo, "Someone may be reigning, but who is really ruling? Is it another from behind the scenes?"
Which brings us to Jane Austen's
Pride and Prejudice, and critic Nina Auerbach's pronouncements of "a world ruled by women but possessed by men."
On the statement's immediate face value, what is emphasized is the concept of
power, and the degree by which it is controlled and "unleashed" by both men and women, specifically in 18th century England. What does the statement eventually mean however? Is it a contradiction of terms? What is
rule, and what is
possession -- and what does both terms entail with regards to power? In brief, the goal here is to define the intricacies of that "power," and how "ruling" and "possessing" are involved in that intricacy.
Imagine a world of muslin morning dresses and sprawling estates, of coded etiquette and ballroom socials. Jane Austen's universe is an intricate, delicately balanced social order in a time when drastic social, political, and institutional changes were devouring the world as she knew it -- especially in neighboring France where the social structure has been put to both flames and the guillotine. In this social atmosphere, England's answer to the growing menace of unrest was
restraint, control, and
propriety. This ideal was thus formed: in society, there must be a union, a marriage between
propriety (which is controlled by women) and
property (controlled by men).
Propriety belonged to the backyard of the womenfolk. It is they who decide on the particulars of social behavior, bearing in mind that "bad behavior was a dangerous course," and could, of course, precipitate the decline of society into chaos. And with the "ideal" that we have mentioned, it is they who also direct the process, who articulates what must be done, who literally tries to make the "whole world go round."
Pride and Prejudice is the prime portrait of the "ideal." It is only proper then, if I could dare say, to open it with a voice unmistakably a
woman, Mrs. Bennet's (the mother of our heroine Elizabeth): "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."
The voice sets the tone, even the purpose of the book; if the book is a metaphor for the world (at least the world at that time), then the voice, a woman' s voice, is the authoritative principle that virtually makes that world "go round."
To make it plain, it is the woman who has the say, although it is the man who eventually acts on it, as it is considered "improper" for the woman to actually act on it herself. One rules, and one reigns.
But who is thus in power?Yet, to ask the question again, what is "rule"? Dictionary-wise, it is "the power to control," just like a Gepetto to a Pinocchio, or the ventriloquist to the puppet. To "rule the world" then, as Auerbach contends, is perhaps to control the process, or to have the means of manipulating the process.
The first chapter of
Pride and Prejudice is ripe with this notion. With Bingley's arrival, the town of Meryton where the Bennets live is thrown into a frenzy of guessing whoever among their unmarried ladies might catch the fancy of this walking "four or five thousand [pounds] a year."
The process is set for Mrs. Bennet: she "urges" her reluctant husband that he must indeed call upon the young man as soon as possible. She implores, "But, my dear, you must indeed go and see Mr. Bingley when he comes into the neighborhood." When Mr. Bennet refuses, she goes on to say, "But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general you know they visit no new comers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him, if you do not.
We later learn that Mr. Bennet indeed goes. Was he persuaded by the "wisdom" (I hope this is not a contradiction) of his wife? I am inclined to believe that he indeed was. We know for a fact that Mr. Bennet thinks so low of his family of "silly women," that an initiative on his part to marry off one of these silly girls would be unthinkable. (Although one might also make an argument that he might want to get rid of them as soon as possible through marriage.) He grasps the importance of the notion from Mrs. Bennet's persuasions, and eventually carries out his paternal responsibility of visiting Bingley.
Another thin passage from the end of Chapter IV seems to uphold this idea of women as "rulers of the process."
In discussing the Meryton assembly after the initial ball, Darcy (Elizabeth's future husband) acknowledged that Jane was pretty, "but she smiled too much." Then we find: "Mrs. Hurst and her sister allowed it to be so -- but still they admired her and liked her, and pronounced her to be a sweet girl, and one whom they should not object to know more of.
Miss Bennet was therefore established as a sweet girl, and their brother felt authorized by such commendation to think of her as he chose." If Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley had initially disapproved of Jane, would Bingley still go ahead with his fancy on the elder Miss Bennet? I would think not. The disapproval would have paralyzed this malleable hunk of a man. The women had decreed approval, however, and Bingley took it as the go-signal to pursue his interests in Jane.
In the same vein, we could find a parallel with Darcy wanting to introduce Elizabeth to his sister near the end of the novel. Is this to gain the approval of the (as yet) "significant woman" in his life? This may be. It is also interesting to note that he had beforehand built up the good reputation of Elizabeth to his sister before the two met. Talk about manipulating the eventual commendation of approval before it is bestowed!
Still another example would be Charlotte's pursuit of Mr. Collins. Faced with the horror of a possibility that she might not at all get the chance to marry, she hears of this gentleman who has just been jilted by her intimate friend. But for her, a marriageable gentleman is a marriageable gentleman, and damn the fact the he might also be a pompous comic whose infuriating superficiality borders on the monstrous.
We read from the book: "Charlotte assured [Elizabeth] of her satisfaction in being useful, and that it amply repaid her for the little sacrifice of her time. This was very amiable, but Charlotte's kindness extended farther than Elizabeth had any conception of; -- its object was nothing less than to secure her from any return of Mr. Collins's addresses, by engaging them towards herself. Such was Miss Lucas's scheme ... Miss Lucas perceived him from an upper window as he walked towards the house, and instantly set out to meet him accidentally in the lane.
In effect, Charlotte becomes the spider spinning the web to trap this fly of a possible suitor into her parlor.
While in one perspective this might be viewed as a picture of "scheming women given to manipulations," that is too harsh a judgment to put upon them. True, they possess the power of puppet masters, but it is a power bestowed on them by society. In effect, they have no choice but to act as they do because it is the role given them. If they can't really impress a final say on society, they might as well work the behind-the-scenes process in order to leave their stamp on it. As a feminist friend of mine said it, "Men may be ruling the world, but they are under our instructions to do it."
In the final analysis, we can say that "to rule" is to take on the
active aspect of power. The
passive aspect is "to possess," the act of owning something. In Austenian England, at least to Auerbach, "Possession is confined to the world of men. They own the world which the women rules."
Who is more powerful then? In Austen's universe, the women rule, yes, but they are also at the mercy of the men who literally "possess" them. They rule, but as it is said, "their lives depend upon, but can also be threatened by, the arrivals and departures [or even the whims] of men."
In
Pride and Prejudice, and indeed in most of Austen's novels, this idea is eternally perpetuated. Legal property denied them, they are confined to do the only thing they could do: wait for Prince Charming to come and rescue them. Indeed we could say that Austen's women are all Cinderellas
waiting for their opportunity to happen. (Opportunity, of course, has a gender, and it is distinctly male.) The women wait for a male heir to be born in order to secure the family estate for the widow and her daughters. Or, if that does not happen, they wait for a suitable young man, preferably moneyed, to court them and give them the blessings of married life. That is why in the Bennet family, we have such a large number of daughters (five). This is a way of telling us that Mr. and Mrs. Bennet indeed tried hard at bedroom business to produce a male heir.
In vain. That is why we find Mrs. Bennet resorting with such energy to her only course: marrying off her daughters. As a phrase in Chapter I puts it, "The business of her life was to get her daughters married." We can therefore understand her frustrations over Elizabeth's refusal of Mr. Collins. In like manner, she berates her "wayward" daughter coldly: "But I tell you what, Miss Lizzy, if you take it into your head to go on refusing every offer of marriage in this way, you will never get a husband at all -- and I am sure I do not know who is to maintain you when your father is dead. I shall not be able to keep you." And we can also understand her instant change of perception of the "evil" Mr. Darcy after it is learned he has proposed to Lizzy and she has accepted it: "Such a charming man! -- so handsome! so tall!"
Women rule. Men possess. Between them is a shared power that is supposed to glue their society and their world together. But it is eventually the gender in trousers who call the final shots.
It is a chauvinistic reality, but this is 18th century England after all. Thus.
[0] This is Where You Bite the Sandwich
GO TO OLDER POSTS
GO TO NEWER POSTS
